Back

Evaluating differential item functioning in the EQ-5D-5L in acute ischemic stroke

Arimoro, O. I.; Ademola, A.; Hill, M. D.; Menon, B. K.; Sajobi, T. T.

2026-03-19 neurology
10.64898/2026.03.10.26348094 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundHealth-related quality of life is a key secondary endpoint in stroke trials. Differential item functioning (DIF) occurs when individuals with the same underlying HRQOL interpret and respond differently to questionnaire items due to group characteristics, potentially biasing treatment comparisons. This study evaluates DIF in the patient-reported five-level EuroQOL (EQ-5D-5L) among patients with acute ischemic stroke across age, sex, and treatment groups. MethodsData were obtained from the AcT trial, a registry-based randomized comparison of alteplase and tenecteplase. Patients completed the EQ-5D-5L at 90 days post-stroke. DIF was assessed using multigroup graded response models with the Wald-based sweep procedure, which accounts for between-group differences in latent trait distributions. We quantified effect sizes using signed weighted area between curves (sWABC), considering |sWABC| <0.10 as negligible. ResultsAmong 1,264 patients (51.2% tenecteplase; 46.5% female; 30.1% aged [&ge;]80). Omnibus testing revealed significant DIF only for age (X{superscript 2} = 86.9, p < 0.001); neither sex (X{superscript 2} = 31.7, p = 0.063) nor treatment (X{superscript 2} = 22.4, p = 0.379) showed evidence of DIF. At the item level, four items flagged for age-related DIF: self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. However, only self-care (sWABC = -0.46) and usual activities (sWABC = - 0.34) showed moderate effects, while pain/discomfort (sWABC = -0.002) and anxiety/depression (sWABC = 0.09) were negligible. Importantly, factor scores from models with and without DIF adjustment correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.98). ConclusionsThe EQ-5D-5L appears to function equivalently across sex and treatment groups in this stroke population. Age-related DIF, though statistically detectable in physical functioning items, had little practical consequence for individual scores, findings that support the instruments use for HRQOL comparisons in stroke trials. RegistrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03889249.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.9%
2
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
14.9%
3
Neurology
44 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
4
Stroke
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.5%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.4%
7
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.4%
8
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
9
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
10
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
11
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
12
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
13
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
14
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
15
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
16
Annals of Neurology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
17
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
18
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
19
Journal of Neurology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
20
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
105 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
21
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
22
Alzheimer's & Dementia
143 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
23
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
24
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
26
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.7%
27
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
28
European Journal of Neurology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
29
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
30
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%